3/21/14 - BREAKING: 21 y.o. out in CO, GA minor ban done; patch fails, MI Gov. keeps pushing; Ca(NS), US: MA,NY,NJ,PA,GA,MS,MI,TX,NE,CO,CA,VI

Not open for further replies.
Jan 19, 2014
Moved On
    [ Just paste broken links shown in purple directly into your browser - the extra line doesn't matter. Pls. PM me if you have more recent info. about proposed/actual legislation, if you think I've missed an important story, or if you want more tweaks to the formatting program. ]

    1) GA passes simple minor ban (ready for Gov. Deal's sig.), CO refuses to raise tobacco products ago to 21.

    2) Studies: new Dr. F. study which shows that second generation vaping equipment is satisfying to smokers and more effective than "cigalikes,"; patch fails to beat placebo for 476 pregnant women in France.

    3) Vaping=smoking rules passed or effectively passed: Great Neck School Dist (Long Is. NY); Socorro TX; Milpitas CA (city property only).

    4) MI Gov. Snyder's position clarified/explained, response from legislative sponsors of SB 667/8.

    5) NS (Ca.) to ban flavored tobacco (and e-liquid, even though it's not legal to sell).

    6) Ft. Worth TX looking at simple minor sales/possession ban.

    7) Grover Norquist (personally) goes after Gov. Christie's tax proposal.

    8) Gary Cox and ACSH go after the epidemic of poison control stories. Consumer Reports adds fuel to the fire by posting 5 years' worth of complaints about vaping reported to the FDA.

    Coverage: Ca(NS); US states: MA, NY, NJ, PA, GA, MS, MI, TX, NE, CO, CA + USVI (US territory)

    Not covered: Poison control stories out of MN (which are subsiding in MN, but ending up as "filler" in other states); stories still filtering in about minor bans in NE (I just did one to clarify the procedural status); LA, and FL.



    Title: Clinical Trial: E-Cigarettes Are Satisfying Cigarette Substitutes [New Dr. F. study]
    (Dr. Rodu's blog)
    Comparison of nicotine absorbtion and subjective levels of satisfaction from first- and second-generation vaping devices indicates that newer equipment works much more effectively to satisfy the cravings of smokers, and thus has much greater potential as a THR/cessation tool.

    Title: E-cigs blames for parental negligence
    (ECF's InfoZone)
    E-cigs blamed for parental negligence - ECF InfoZone
    Gary Cox on the frenzy of poison control call stories

    Title: MN poison control exaggerates dangers to toddlers from e-cigarettes
    MN poison control exaggerates dangers to toddlers from e-cigarettes | American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)
    Another look at these stories.

    Title: Nicotine patches in pregnant smokers: randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre trial of efficacy [Conclusion - patch didn't work]
    (BMJ) Nicotine patches in pregnant smokers: randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre trial of efficacy | BMJ
    Survey of 476 pregnant women in France who smoked at least 5 tobacco cigarettes per day.
    "Conclusion The nicotine patch did not increase either smoking cessation rates or birth weights despite adjustment of nicotine dose to match levels attained when smoking, and higher than usual doses."



    Title: Liberals target flavoured tobacco [and e-liquid]
    (Halifax NS Ca. local paper) http://thechronicleherald

    Brief report on pending legislation to ban flavored tobacco and e-liquid.
    "Health and Wellness Minister Leo Glavine said on Thursday that his government is looking at comprehensive legislation this spring that would also include e-cigarettes. 'This is, again, Big Tobacco looking at a way ... (to attract) new smokers and we are going to put a ban on flavoured tobacco,' he said. On Wednesday, the Nova Scotia division of the Canadian Cancer Society released results of a poll showing 65 per cent of Nova Scotians would support such a ban. 'We are calling on all Nova Scotians to put pressure on their local MLAs,' Kelly Cull, manager of government and partner relations, said in a news release. 'Flavoured tobacco is putting our youth at risk and we strongly recommend the government amend the Tobacco Access Act to prohibit the sale of all flavoured tobacco products.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]."
    It's not clear if the poll addressed vaping. But what's likely is that it was paid for with Canadian tax dollars. And if recent polls by similar US organizations are any guide, little information will be released about the internals of the poll.



    Title: The U.S. Domestic E-Cig Market Is About to Be Shaken Up
    (Int'l investment 'zine) http://www.fool

    Although the author tries to shed some light on Imperial's intellectual property suit against a number of vaping vendors, Your Correspondent could find little information beyond the obvious fact that this firm came a bit late to the party and is trying to interfere with the sucess of others. However this junk-free article is noteworthy for the author's summary of Mitch Zeller's affiliatins:
    "To help try to disrupt the potential of e-cigs, it would appear as if Glaxo is seeking help from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration -- in particular, the head of the FDA's tobacco enforcement division, Mitch Zeller, a former anti-tobacco lobbyist who was appointed head of the FDA's center for tobacco products earlier this year. Now, Zeller should not be taking sides in this argument, but according to an article published in The Wall Street Journal back in 2009, Zeller disclosed that he "provides consulting support to GlaxoSmithKline consumer health through Pinney Associates on an exclusive basis on issues related to tobacco dependence treatment." This pharmaceutical consultancy has regulatory authority over competing products, including e-cigs. I must stress that I'm only speculating a link between these two entities. [para breaks omitted]"

    Title: The 5 biggest e-cigarette complaints - What e-cig users have reported to the FDA
    (US Nat'l consumer mag) http://www.consumerreports

    Consumer Reports is at it again. (Could it be that the flood of poison control stories resulting from the MN dep't of health's press release are making their editors jealous?) These complaints cover a 5-year period, and the grand total is "more than 70" (does that mean 71?). To its credit, C-U does indicate that "The reports don't prove that e-cigs caused the problem, and its [sic] unknown if [sic] the people who made the complaints were using the devices as directed or had an underlying health problem that contributed to the problem."
    Other than some of the items one might anticipate (e.g. allergic reactions or the "exploding mod" cases), there are two alleged deaths. Quite likely we'll see this piece propagate into the mainstream media tomorrow, via knockoffs and syndications.

    Title: How state taxes promote an underground cigarette market
    (US National paper) http://www.washingtonpost

    This is what's going to happen to vaping. No junk. This seems to have spurred several recent related stories:
    Title: Cigarette Smuggling Is Rampant in Places Where a Pack Costs $14.50—And Where a Pack Cost Fifty Cents
    (US nat'l mag.) http://www.smithsonianmag
    Title: The boom in smuggling to avoid cigarette taxes
    (US nat'l network) http://www.cbsnews



    Title: Nicotine devices find an audience
    (Boston MA US local paper) http://www.bostonglobe

    Focuses on a family of ex-smokers who switched to vaping. As with the story out of Kingston NY below, the Tobacco Control Industry spokeswoman in this piece appears to be woefully unprepared to deliver the party line:
    "'It’s nicotine and it’s an addictive drug, whether you’re smoking it in tobacco form or e-cigarette form,' said Ruth Clay, director of the joint Health Department of Melrose, Reading, and Wakefiel."
    (That's the best she can do?)

    [ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: CASAA: Call to Action! Massachusetts E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- HB 3726 (formerly HB 3639) (UPDATED) ]



    Title: From smoking to vaping: Locals talk e-cigarettes
    (Kingston NY US ind. web site) http://www.kingstonx

    It's almost as if this breezily-written piece comes from a time warp, a bygone halcyon era in which the AMTZ orgs hadn't declared all-out war on vaping, and determined that the true enemy was nicotine and - even if no nicotine is being vaped - anything that looks like smoking to an onlooker. Begins with the personal stories of smokers who have switched to vaping, and then we get this peculiarly-mild statement:
    "Ellen Reinhard, director of Tobacco-Free Action Coalition of Ulster County, said her organization’s position is not yet entirely settled. 'Our stand is tough, we deal with tobacco,' said Reinhard. 'And e-cigarettes are new. So many things are not regulated. It’s a new frontier, and it’s scary, but we don’t know much about it.' Reinhard said she sees more cigarette companies jumping in the game. She is worried that their alleged comparative safety, paired with effective marketing -- unlike real cigarettes, e-cigs can and are advertised on television -- could get more young people addicted to nicotine. 'It’s becoming an aggressive industry,' said Reinhard."
    Ms. Reinhard will likely soon be on the receiving end of some harsh words from her overlords in the Tobacco Control Industry.

    [ NY has a vaping=smoking bill indoor ban now in the legislature. See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-e-cigs-contain-tobacco-all-workplaces.html also tax bill: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-tax-e-cig-cartridges-75-wholesale-price.html ]

    Title: Health officials challenge e-cigarette marketing
    (Norwich NY US local paper) http://www.evesun

    This throwaway four-paragraph blurb cites the Dutra&Glantz junk statistics JAMA paper in an effort to convince readers that vaping leads to tobacco smoking among teens, and then concludes with a boilerplate quote from the local "Tobacco Free County Coord.":
    "'This is not a product that is being portrayed as safe in any means,' said Mutabiilwa, citing state law that prohibit sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18. 'E-cigarettes still have a nicotine product that gets people addicted and I think that leads them to smoking real cigarettes later on.'"
    [Not exactly a professional ANTZ job, is it?]

    Title: GN [Great Neck] ed board proposes banning e-cigarettes
    (N. Shore Nassau Co. US local paper collection site) http://www.theislandnow

    No problem with minors vaping, apparently, but ...
    "Great Neck Board of Education Policy Chair Susan Healy said the board decided to propose the ban to 'promote wellness and healthy lifestyles.' 'They have been so much in the news lately and we decided we would be missing the boat in not addressing it,' Healy said."
    (How nice that they're promoting wellness and a healthy lifestyle. And keeping up with the news, to boot. That's why we have elected officials.)
    While all of the above is about as predictable as a plot twist in Leave it to Beaver, the story goes on to mention a local vaper who is apparently concerned that the policy is badly-written, because it doesn't address 0% e-liquid, and PVs that can't be described as "e-cigarettes." The vaper is identified as being a member of the National Vapers Club. However the Education Policy Chair doesn't seem to be too concerned about the exceptions, because:
    "But Healy said state law already prohibits the act of smoking on school property. 'Between our code of conduct and state law there shouldn’t be smoking on district property,' Healy said. [para break omitted, boldface added.]"
    (She forgot to add: "or anything that looks like smoking to a bystander.")



    Title: Grover Norquist Wants To Kill Chris Christie's E-Cigarette Tax
    (Nat'l US Politics 'zine) http://talkingpointsmemo

    No junk in this piece, which is mainly of interest because it focuses on what's likely to be a growing source of tension between opponents of taxation and local jurisdictions struggling to find new sources of revenue to replace lost cigarette tax income. We may see this same dynamic played out at the federal level in the US, if the decline in tobacco cigarette sales continues to increase. And there's no reason to think that it won't affect other countries in which vaping is legal (since they all tax tobacco cigarettes).
    [ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
    Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs:
    CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes

    Title: N.J. Proposal To Raise Tax On E-Cigarettes Met With Resistance By Small Business Group
    (NYC CBS affiliate) http://newyork.cbslocal

    No specific junk here, and little more information than the title conveys. But it is interesting to observe that another economic interest is now involved in lobbying against Gov. Christie's proposal. We may see this occur in other states that have proposed taxes on vaping. (Did it have an effect in WA?)



    [REPOST due to new article - Originally posted 3/16/14]
    Title: Keep e-cigarettes away from kids
    (Suburban Pittsburgh PA US local paper) http://www.thealmanac
    (Washington PA US local paper) http://www.observer-reporter

    Editorial supports PA's SB 1055, a simple minor sales/possession ban, which has passed the sen. and is currently awaiting house approval. Unfortunately it cites the Dutra & Glantz JAMA paper, and embraces the meme that vaping is a "gateway" behavior that leads to tobacco smoking among minors.



    Title: GA lawmakers ban minors from buying 'e-cigarettes'
    (Athens GA local paper) http://m.onlineathens

    GA House passes HB 251, which is equivalent to SB 347 - a simple minor sales/possession ban. Legislative session is over for the year, and bill is ready for Gov. Deal's signature. No junk.



    Title: DeSoto Co. bans use of e-cigarettes
    (Wash. DC local paper) http://www.washingtontimes

    Goes with yesterday's report from DeSoto, and noteworthy only for the rational:
    "'There’s just tons and tons of material out there on e-cigarettes, but there are no conclusive studies and they remain unregulated,' County Administrator Vanessa Lynchard told supervisors this week."
    This is the same official who indicated yesterday that the Co. would change its policy if the FDA found vaping to be 'safe' (huh?). No junk here besides what you see above.

    [ All efforts to expand MS's clean indoor air act to cover vaping or to tax and/or otherwise regulate vaping in the MS legislature have failed. If you know of any pending legislation, please PM me. ]



    Title: Gov. Snyder Uncomfortable With Current E-Cigarette Bill
    (Lansing MI US ABC affiliate) http://www.wlns

    As reported yesterday, Gov. Snyder has decided to let the Health Dep't do his talking, and has called for taxing and regulating vapor products in the same way as tobacco products. With this new report, the plot thickens. It appears that:
    1) The Gov is actually opposed to the combined SB 667/8, because it doesn't define e-cigarettes as tobacco products.
    2) This appears to be part of a larger push by ANTZ orgs, originally reported in this space on the 10th, via this AP story: http://detroit.cbslocal
    and is also behind the 3/4 press conference given by Dr. Matthew Davis of the MI Health dep't reported in this space on the 5th: http://detroit.cbslocal

    3) Apparently Gov. Snyder's position is now that any product containing nicotine should be regulated as a "tobacco product:"
    "Governor Rick Snyder: 'Given the nature of the product shouldn't it just be treated as a tobacco product and wouldn't that be the best outcome?' Reporter: 'Why?' Governor Snyder: 'It's liquid nicotine and that's one of the key elements in tobacco, isn't it?'"
    4) However it seems that the Gov. and the ANTZ org.s aren't likely to get their wish:
    "Representative Hugh Crawford: 'Politically I'm not going to push the button to raise taxes. And that's another tax. When it's not truly a tobacco product. Some of it is derived from tobacco, but it's not like you use some leaves.' The Senate Sponsor Glenn Anderson refused to add the tobacco designation to the bill for fear any chatter about a tax hike would kill the bill. Senate Sponsor Glenn Ander: 'It definitely would not pass. It'll bog down the process and we'll still have children buying these products.' As for the Governor he is not backing down, but by the same token he has not threatened to veto the bill. As for wanting to tax the e-cigarettes, Governor Snyder said he would not speculate on that. The ban for minors is expected to clear the house without the tobacco label in the bill."
    So there you have it - the situation in MI is a standoff between the Gov., the health dep't, and ANTZ orgs on one side, versus the legislature on the other. As we've seen in other states (OR, OK, and NE come to mind), the requirement advanced by the ALA and its sister ANTZ orgs to define vaping products as "tobacco products" seems to either create the kind of legislative gridlock that results in no minor sales/possession bans being passed (OR), and/or gets them nowhere in their quest for extending clean indoor air acts to cover vaping (OK and NE).
    So if this junk-free report is correct, it appears that Gov. Snyder isn't going to get his tax, and also that local businesses and/or jurisdictions will determine where one can vape in MI. (But the legislature will be in session until at least mid-June.)

    [ MI appears to have several simple minor sales bans in the works - SB 667/8 and HB 4997 5007. SB 667/8 have passed the Sen. Most significantly, MI is under threat from HB 5393, which would effectively ban vaping sales entirely:



    Title: Fort Worth looks at banning e-cig sales to minors
    (Dallas/Ft. Worth TX US local paper) http://www.star-telegram

    Nothing in this junk-free story suggests that Ft. Worth is ready for a "minor morph" (i.e. a simple minor sales/possession ban turns into an indoor/outdoor vaping ban).
    [ TX's legislature is out of session for the year, unless Gov. Perry calls for a special session. ]

    Title: City of Socorro bans e-cigarette smoking in public places
    (El Paso TX US NBC affiliate) http://www.ktsm

    Another vaping=smoking clean air act extension, unanimously passed, and justified by the minor gateway-to-tobacco argument:
    "'We see that the majority of people who use these e-cigarettes are teenagers. And we see that in 2011 and 2012, the number of teenagers who used these cigarettes more than doubled across the country and of course that leads to an addiction to nicotine,' said Mayor Jesus Ruiz. [...]
    'We see them as another cigarette,' said Sue Beatty with the El Paso Department of Health [...] 'They also come in flavors, which makes them very appealing to young people, and so again, in our opinion, it's really kind of a way of maybe getting new smokers to start with the addiction,' said Beatty. [para breaks omitted]"

    (It's not clear if the health dep't or local ANTZ orgs were actually involved in initiating this.)



    Title: E-cig sales ban for minors sent to final Neb. vote
    (AP) http://www.klkntv
    Apparently a second procedural vote was nec'y in Neb's unicameral legislature to send the simple minor/possession ban to Gov. Heineman. Many other outlets picked up this AP story, but I haven't listed them.



    Title: Nicotine device bill advances in Colorado
    (AP) http://www.9news

    No junk in this AP story. CO House approves SB 18 in a preliminary voice vote. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion over this bill - on its face, it seems to be a duplicate of a simple minor sales/possession ban which is already in effect in CO. See this thread:

    Title: Colorado rejects smoking [tobacco products]-age increase
    (Tobacco industry amalgam web site) http://www.tobaccoreporter

    House Finance Cmte indefinitely tabled a bill to raise age of access to "tobacco products" to 21 (which include vaping). This is HB 1263: Search Results (CO about tobacco) | LegiScan



    Title: Milpitas council extends smoking ban to e-cigarettes
    (Mulpitas CA US local paper [owned by SJ Mercury]) http://www.mercurynews

    City Council bans vaping on city property, but not private property.
    The reasons for this decision are described opaquely - to put it mildly. First, it seems that there's some question about zoning:
    "Felix Reliford, the city's principal housing planner, told the council prior to its vote that the city recently received inquiries from retail businesses regarding the sale of electronic cigarettes, nicotine vaporizers and similar devices. He added the city's zoning ordinance had been unclear on the regulation and classification of these types of uses and city staff interpreted these uses to fall within the 'tobacco shop' type of use, the general term referenced in the zoning ordinance. Likewise, the zoning ordinance does not define 'tobacco shop' or other tobacco related uses. The zoning ordinance also includes a use entitled 'head/tobacco/smoke shop' that is not defined and does not exist anywhere else in this ordinance, city reports state."[para break omitted] (How does this bear on an individual's use of a PV? Your correspondent is baffled.) Next, it seems that the 'safety' of vaping has been 'questioned' - whether this applies to the vaper's experience or the bystander's is also unclear:
    "'It should be noted that the Food and Drug Administration along with health care providers have questioned the safety of these devices but are still studying them,' Reliford said. 'Nothing conclusive has been determined at this point in time.'
    And third, we hear that:
    "However, city staffers alluded to FDA reports that state e-cigarettes are able to convert nicotine, which is highly addictive, and other chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user. In the last few years, the agency raised concerns that these devices, which are often marketed in kid-appealing flavors like bubblegum, can increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead youth to try conventional tobacco products."
    So now we have three items on the table: (1) an unclear zoning ordinance (which appears to say nothing about the use of PVs); (2) the 'safety' of vaping has been 'questioned' (either for the vaper or the bystander, or both); and (3) vaping may deliver nicotine which is addictive and there are 'concerns' about minors. Got that? Okay so, now we're ready for:
    "To address all of these issues and clarify the intent of the Milpitas' existing smoking ordinance, city staffers proposed the amendment better define and classify tobacco and similar uses. Currently, the city's smoking ordinance prohibits the smoking of a cigarette, pipe or cigar in certain public places, within 25 feet of any city building or facility."
    It's not at all clear what the zoning issue has to do with any of this, or whether the 'clarification' of the city's ordinance was intended to: (a) protect vapers; (b) protect bystanders; (c) protect children from seeing what the city council thinks they shouldn't see; or (d) reduce the likelihood that children will become addicted to nicotine in some more general way. (Or anything else, for that matter.)

    [ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html ]



    Title: Legislature’s Health Committee Passes Bill Preventing E-cigarette Sales to Minors
    (St. Croix USVI local paper)
    [This is the entire blurb:]
    "The e-cigarette bill’s sponsor, Sen. Sammuel Sanes, said the sale of the battery-operated electronic cigarettes is spreading and that they contain substances that are harmful. Dr. Marc Jerome of the Health Department said e-cigarettes are nicotine-based and 'should not be in the hands of minors.' 'This is a preventative care bill,' said Sen. Diane Capehart, who is not a committee member but sat in for part of the meeting." [para breaks omitted]"


    Google Tips

    to see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
    rhode site:casaa.org
    (Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)

    You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread